Re: Hard drive question
From: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] (lanwench_at_heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com)
Date: 10/15/04
- Next message: Nancy: "Re: Exchange policies"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Time server?"
- In reply to: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Next in thread: Mal Osborne: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Reply: Mal Osborne: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:52:24 -0400
Dave Nickason [SBS MVP] wrote:
> More drives is theoretically faster, but I doubt you'll notice it in
> an SBS-sized network. Those 15K drives are so fast anyway, the
> difference is not likely to be noticeable unless you're moving huge
> amounts of data.
>
> Please consider a hot spare drive, even if you add it later. I have
> 3 Dell servers, and each of them has had a drive fail within about
> the last 6 months (including one 5-month-old server). Because drives
> only fail during your company's biggest project ever, or the day
> before your vacation, a hot spare will add some valuable extra
> redundancy.
>
> (By the way, adding a hot spare later may be cheaper, but it'll
> definitely be easier configuration-wise. Dell has a tough time with
> RAID configurations other than those listed as a choice on the web
> site, although they will do them on request. Order the drive with
> the server, and it'll be covered on the server's warranty. Then
> install it yourself. Don't forget to order the carrier and screws
> too).
For what it's worth, I always reconfigure the RAID & reinstall servers
myself anyway - and recommend that others do the same. That way you really
know what you're getting.
I absolutely agree with the hot spare idea. More spindles=better performance
IIRC, so doing 4 36GB with another as a hotspare is better than 3 73GB...
>
>
> "Ascnet" <gage@keepyourspamknightinsurancethankyou.com> wrote in
> message news:O2zBrGssEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I'm ordering a Dell server for my SBS installation and have a toss
>> up. I'm
>> going with SCSI drives in a RAID 5 config but have a delima with
>> number of drives and drive size. Cost is equal between 4 36GB 15K
>> drives or 3 73GB 15K drives. I realize the 73GB solution should
>> provide an extra 38GB of storage. Is there a performance difference
>> between three large drives and four smaller drives? It seems having
>> more drives would be slightly better (extra read/write head).
>> Thoughts?
- Next message: Nancy: "Re: Exchange policies"
- Previous message: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Time server?"
- In reply to: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Next in thread: Mal Osborne: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Reply: Mal Osborne: "Re: Hard drive question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
